Gee, why does this not surprise me?
4
These conflicts were and are inevitable. Network news divisions are expected to be profitable and that results in constant conflicts of interest like this.
Add the series of corporate mergers affecting the networks and you have even more conflicts leading to the timidity and risk averse nature of current network news programs.
They used to be a civic responsibility required by the government. Now they're just another corporate profit center and increasingly irrelevant as a result. They cover stories rather than breaking them.
6
Maybe Mr. Oppenheim's name is tucked away with Trump filth, in Mr. Pecker's celebrated "National Inquirer" locked vault, too. I'm incapable of even mild surprise, anymore.
4
So, NBC was playing "catch and kill" with Farrow's reporting. Was that in response to a Weinstein threat? Maybe to spill the beans on Matt Lauer? Or does Weinstein have something on Lack?
"There is nothing hidden that will not be found. There is no secret that will not be well known."
Luke 8:17
8
Sheryl Attkisson, former CBS reporter, had the same experience except in her case the story was critical of the Obama Administration.
The media can and does kill stories. It's not impartial. Freedom of the press doesn't guarantee the press will be free from bias.
10
Hmmm, I wonder if NBC could "kill" a story of this widespread importance if there are other stories out there lingering in the shadows because someone's paycheck depends on that story not being told?
9
No surprise NBC wanted to bury this story considering how close to home it hit, and what their own male anchors were up to.
5
@Xoxarle
True. You are right.
It also makes me wonder why Joy Reid, who wrote such bigoted hate-blogs about gays, has managed to keep her job at MSNBC.
MSNBC has, as far as I know, remained mute, as has NBC. Brian Williams did far less, but was ousted from the Nightly News spot, yet she still has her show on MSNBC, and some of her host colleagues have not only failed to condemn her bigotry, but have spoken out in her support.
Reid wrote this sick stuff awhile back, but (MS)NBC regularly--and rightly--condemns long-past bigoted speech and abusive behavior.
With every day that they fail to publicly condemn Reid's spewings, they lose a little more moral authority to condemn any hate speech, no matter the source.
Is the fix in at (MS)NBC? Sure sounds like it to me. Protecting their own.
11
@Jojojo
I'm so sure that Joy's party affiliation has nothing to do with it just oversight perhaps from the suits.
2
Reading the story reminded me how deeply the news industry has been corrupted by corporate ties to the entertainment industry. Reading the comments has depressed me even further.
I'm shocked at the number of comments that walk right by the content of the article to focus instead on its utility to their partisan agenda--whether to gloat over one 'liberal' media outlet 'attacking' another, or to tell people "Shush! Our partisan enemies could use this story to promote their 'fake news' strategy."
None of us peons can do anything about corporate infotainment driving out serious news. But we can refrain from perceiving everything we read or hear through a partisan lens, as if nothing is a plain fact and everything is an argumentative weapon; as if our goal is limited to grasping for partisan advantage rather than improving our grasp on reality.
16
NBC was wise to exercise caution in reporting the Weinstein story. Today, we know that Ronan Farrow very probably got things correct, and that his reporting was reliable. (Mr. Weinstein is still entitled to his day in court).
But remember the situation in the time period described in this story. Ronan Farrow was (and is) hardly a fully objective reporter, detached from the subject at hand. His father is (probably) Woody Allen and his mother is Mia Farrow; his family is burdened with well-publicized, and controversial, allegations of sexual abuse.
It seems to me NBC was entirely appropriate in insisting on thorough substantiation of the allegations made against Harvey Weinstein, by people willing to go on the record.
8
@Alex I guarantee you that phone records and emails between Weinstein execs and NBC execs utterly destroy your assertion that this was all about journalistic integrity. In fact, the reason Weinstein hasn't sued Farrow et al is *because* he knows that discovery will absolutely demolish both himself and NBC.
4
we no longer have due process. lives can be RUINED by allowing allegations to fly like they were convictions... women who cannot corroborate their hearsay MUST issue retraction and apologize for wrongly accusing men.
4
They are complicit in the sexual assaults. Hiding it, ignoring it, complicit.
3
Behavior seems similar to David Pecker and National Enquire - protect your guy because you've had a longstanding relationship or he helps you make money or he might help you make money in the future or it would be impolite and uncomfortable at the country club.
2
So it's not just bottom feeding politicians who look out for one another, it's also the broadcasting/entertainment elite. Why am I not shocked at this?
13
Rich McHugh is either not telling the truth or woefully unaware. It's been common knowledge at NBC that Ronan's pieces were sub-par. He had to be hand-held through the stories he produced. He got very few reports on air, and those that made their way to broadcast resembled something that would have been done by a journalism student.
As a result, NBC executives were rightfully unsure of the integrity of the Weinstein reporting.
4
@H. Stern
Sounds self-serving. I have read Ronan’s work in both publications and his book, as well as listen to him when interviewed. He is thoughtful and insightful. As an historian I wish there were more like him: our Republic would be well served by those like him who are skilled and brave enough to go against the powerful.
15
This article is a classic case study as to what happens to democracy in a media universe where 90% of news content is owned by five giant, for-profit entertainment conglomerates, including Comcast/NBC, the new Disney-Fox/ABC (where Rupert Murdoch will be the principal shareholder), Warner Media (formerly Time-Warner)/CNN, the remaining Fox News organization (which Murdoch also will continue to control) and the soon to be reunited Viacom/CBS. Note that Murdoch will now be the principal shareholder in both Fox News and ABC News.
This ownership setup of for-profit journalism creates an inherent divided-loyalty situation, in which professional journalistic integrity is always subject to manipulation by the corporate ownership.
To its discredit, the journalism profession refuses to openly acknowledge the degree to which journalistic and reporting decisions are shaped by profit and rating concerns.
The classic example of this corporate interference, as we saw in the 2016 "email" election, was the blatant way in which the cable networks openly subsidized the Trump campaign with an estimated $2 billion of free airtime for rallies and phone call-ins, while Hillary was mercilessly scrutinized, all in order to produce a financially profitable, competitive horse-race.
And, as the article relates, Comcast sat on the Access Hollywood and Apprentice archives, in conflict with its own NBC News division. To her credit, Rachel Maddow continually pressed Comcast to release the materials.
34
Something smells fishy in Denmark, and its not the herring.
Here's what I don't understand about Mr Oppenheim's version of events:
1. Mr Oppenheim encouraged Mr Farrow to do an interview with an actress on camera about Mr Weinstein.
2. Mr Farrow's reporting was never "publication worthy" for NBC because he didn't have at least one witness on camera, on the record.
3. Mr Farrow asked to publish the story in a magazine, not another broadcast outlet, and NBC said fine.
4. Mr Farrow requested a NBC TV crew for an on-the-record, on-camera interview on the Weinstein story.
5. Mr Oppenheim refused the request for an NBC TV crew for the interview, that might make the story "publication ready", and only then fired Mr Farrow.
PROBLEM 1: If Mr Farrow going to the magazine was helping a competitor, then why not fire him right away?
PROBLEM 2: If all that was missing from NBC' point of view was one on-camera, on-the-record witness, then why refuse the camera crew request, AND fire Mr Farrow at that time?
Mr Oppenheim's version doesn't hold water.
12
I hope that Mr. Farrow and the producer interviewed for this story will share the names of the individuals who impeded their reporting.
6
Many top executives at NBC have no morals. It remains a boys club and a pathetic one at that. The fact that Andrew Lack and Noah Oppenheim got away with denying knowledge about Matt Lauer's affairs speaks volumes. I hope they walk thru life most proud of what they accomplished and the price they paid for it.
8
Things are more complicated and less straightforward than this article suggests.
News media have an obligation to get the facts they publish as close to correct as possible. But do they have an obligation to publish everything they know? The answer is likely no. Every day, the media exercises judgement over what is presented to the public. As they should.
Sometimes, and unfortunately, the media is influenced by political bias. News that doesn’t fit a paper’s world view may receive little attention in its pages. Other times, the media must be selective in the interests of protecting life (e.g., the case of NY Times reporter David Rohde) or out of concern for national security. On many occasions, the media must withhold reporting that editors feel is likely true, but not sufficiently well substantiated. CNN, for example, seems to have a habit of getting itself in journalistic trouble by not paying sufficient attention to this dictum.
So, what happened in the case at hand? Did NBC decline to go after a story out of allegiance to the powerful, or out of concern for the completeness of the reporting? It’s hard for the public, and the New York Times, to reliably know. Personally, I think that we should give NBC the benefit of the doubt. I have seen all too many questionable stories, especially on the topic of sexual abuse, which, unfortunately, are often he-said-she-said. A bell cannot be unrung, and rushes to judgement are usually not a good thing.
6
@Alex
Spot on comments. As Edward R. Murrow put it in his famous 1958 speech about the media "money machine" :
"One of the basic problems of radio and television news is that both have grown up an an incompatible combination of show business, advertising and news. [...] The top management of the networks [...] have been trained in advertising, research or show business [... but] make the final crucial decisions having to do with news.... Frequently they have neither the time nor the competence to do this."
1
NBC is in the entertainment industry, broadcasting news and drama. It sounds to me as if it just didn't want to upset an entertainment producer presumably to maintain access to his product. It was a business decision.
5
Hey what about SNL?
Been on for decades. Surely there are huge payouts over all that time?
If not, a miracle at Rock Center??
1
Can you say corporate fascism? Comcast, Universal, NBC are all one and the same. Their bottom line is profit over anything else. Truth is far down their agenda. Ronan Farrow is a truth teller. People like him are getting harder to find in this day and age in the media. Most are corporate players with excessive monetary contracts. Then they tow the corporate line. All of the major network's anchors and morning show hosts are propaganda spewing, lying shills. And they know it. Finding honesty and or integrity within this business is practically unknown.
7
Let's get Betsy DeVos' opinion on this. She probably has lots of positive things to say in defense of Weinstein, since she's advocating for more behavior like his on college campuses.
5
@Randall
1
Obama lowered the standards for rape allegations to win over a certain constituency. It was all part of his emphasis on identity politics. No one should lose rights to advance a political agenda. Certainly liberals understand this.
There have to be better ways to address the rape problem.
2
This report is very troubling in light of our current political environment in which the media is branded as "fake news" and "enemy of the people." I'm very concerned that reports like these will only serve to underscore the effectiveness of Trump's bullying and false allegations vis-a-vis the media.
2
@John
The truth is the truth. It clears the air and keeps people honest. This report does not take away from the excellent work NBC employees are doing. Those at the top need to be exposed when they lose their way.
5
@John
No fan of Trump. But at what point do you stop referring to it as bullying, and start referring to it as the truth.
Brian Ross had to resign from ABC for a false story.
3 separate journalists had to resign at CNN for their false story.
CNN is in the middle of another embarrassing lie with the Lanny Davis situation. Someone, soon to be fired.
Now NBC is trying to suppress stories for their friends and/or business associates. If they are willing to do this for people they like, why on earth would they not suppress good news or make up bad news against Trump.
And yes, there are plenty of other examples.
Is the Left going to let the house burn down around them before they actually believe the calls of "Fire"?
4
Ho hum - is this really anything new? Unfortunately a large segment of our populace is blissfully ignorant of the deeply embedded bias in our major news organizations. God help this reporter if he had tried to write a positive piece on our current president. And to think so many scoff at the concept of 'fake news'. Fake news is as much about what gets buried as it is about what gets published.
2
Hmm, let's see - the story wasn't "broadcast ready" yet NBC execs were doing everything in their power to insure it remained that way by refusing camera crew access to Farrow.
Hats off to Farrow. I recall how he got scooped by the NYT, and the depth and richness of the story.
Can't believe all the trolls on this board who are working in conjunction with DeVos and the Ruskies to drag us back to the era before MeToo. Give it up. Farrow, McGown, Judd et al are going to prevail. Time for top leadership at NBC to take a walk. Out the door!
7
Freedom of the Press is key to any democracy. The Constitution guarantees that, right?
Problem is, when the First Amendment was ratified in 1791, the "Press" were not comprised of MegaCorporateProfitDrivenCommuncationsConglomerates.
4
Gore Vidal once said that television would be a fantastic medium if they would just ban all advertising. We haven't and so I haven't had a television in decades, but I found and watched Laurer's interviews with Trump and Clinton during the campaign. I will never forget it or how bad it was. That was a disgraceful horrifyingly bad performance. How can such an idiot be leading such a large audience? Then I learned that simple-minded bafoon is NBC's top star. I still find this more astounding than the news that this shallow silly man is also a predator, supported and protected by his company. When I remember that we used to watch people like Eduard R Murrow, Walter Cronkite, and Eric Severeid I could weep. Laurer is a bimbo, even before we knew he was a creep. Obviously I haven't missed much in the decades without television. Executives have learned that the lowest common denominator sells more products. In my dreams, at least half of television would be public financed and supported, like PBS or C-SPAN. Does this make me a socialist?
15
Anyone who thinks the Fifth Estate would uphold journalistic integrity over profits needs to stop drinking the Kool-Aid. These outlets are corporations that only care about ratings, advertisers, subscribers and anything that affects its bottom line. A powerful Hollywood executive like Harvey Weinstein can have a significant financial effect on Comcast's interests in the news/entertainment industry(i.e., buying ad airtime for trailers, production scripts, etc.).
I'm not saying all news outlets will never do right thing, but even with a courageous journalist, there are layers of editors, producers, and executives who will dilute or block attempts to publish these stories.
Hopefully this will help others see through the veneer and stop viewing news outlets as some infallible, moral entity that looks out for the public's interest, and start seeming for what they truly are: profit-seeking corporations.
71
@Max Mouse did you mean Fifth Column? Because the Press is the Fourth Estate! Big difference there - need a math review?
7
Time for Lack and Oppenheim to go. Put some women in these positions and pay them the same amount.
7
And in the midst of this, let us not forget that NBC execs likely know much of what transpired on the set of the Apprentice. Why not release the outtakes? Many of us know that Donald is a racist and a misogynist and we don't need further proof. But watching him use invectives might give someone still clinging to him as Dear Leader a reason to vote for a Democrat in the midterms, thereby checking him.
11
it makes no sense from a journalism view to squash or sit on this story. someone at NBC is corrupt and they must be fired.
4
Speaking about collusion.....
8
Another justification to call NBC News a fake news. They make up news against Trump and suppress real news.
7
@Alex E - Yes, when NBC protects their own interests at the expense of others, they are indeed an enemy of the people.
4
Rich McHugh is making this public, not Ronan Farrow.
Farrow isn't complaining, just corroborating what occurred.
The New Yorker article is more newsworthy than a television broadcast. You can't put a price on a Pulitzer. Who still watches television news....?
8
Wasn't this all going on during the Brian Williams mess, or there about?
That would likely have execs making sure their backsides were covered....add to that, accusing the most powerful (at the time) man in Hollyweird would make one ensure they had facts straight.
Hate sounding like I'm defending NBC, but some of this makes sense...
1
@Old Guy
NBC also owns I believe Bravo and Lifetime Networks. Both stations carried Project Runway which Miramax produced and HW's wife has been a judge. Hmmmmm.
1
Weinstein was a darling of the left, having contributed millions to democrats like obama and the clintons. So it is easy to understand why certain media outlets sought to "protect" him.
7
It's bad enough to have you-know-who barking "Fake News" and now "enemy of the people," but for the media to "kill" the true story that launched the #MeToo movement is outrageous censorship. Mr. Oppenheim should resign. We don't need another coverup and fake denial. Ronan farrow is brilliant and a national treasure. Shame, shame on NBC!
7
This is not news, it's gossip. It should be beneath the Times to publish this story.
5
@Carl Zeitz - It's wonderful. One liberal biased news organization attacking another - carry on! Enemies of each other and of the people.
6
@Dave T No, they're not biased Dave, they are just in this case picking nits and gnats from the carcass of a major story. Having been a reporter I find folks with your view and understanding of the press/media most peculiar in your irrational contempt and mistrust and misunderstanding of a free press. My comment had to do with my news judgement as a one-time reporter. This just isn't worth reporting. I read two grads and went on to other stuff.
2
@Carl Zeitz What Carl said is a lot closer to the truth which made this story incomplete and not worthy of all the news that's fit to print but Times have changed.
1
This is devastating to read as huge NBC and MSNBC fan. I really thought our side was better than theirs. Now I am not so sure.
15
@Garth
"Our side?" Your comment reveals far too much.
4
Americans think of censorship as government rules that dictate what a free press can or cannot say.
That may be the case in some countries, but in our society, where 95% of the media outlets are owned by six corporate conglomerates, censorship takes a very different form.
Today corporate media censors by omission rather than any edict from the government. In many ways this is more sinister. At least when the state does the dirty deed we know it. It's out in the open as for example in China.
But when an NBC tries to prevent another well-connected media figure from being exposed, we may never know why.
After all, what does "not broadcast ready" really mean? Some studies have found that NBC, a subsidiary of Westinghouse, rarely does stories critical of nuclear power. Guess who manufactures nuclear power plants?
Another study found that MSNBC ran 126 segments on Stormy Daniels. During that same period that ran one story on the tragedy in Yemen. Maybe those dying children weren't as important as Stormy.
Farrow was lucky. He has solid credentials, lots of media connections and a blockbuster story. Someone was bound to pick him up.
But the children of Yemen are not so fortunate. Nor are the farmworkers dying from pesticide poisoning or the dirty little secret of how many people actually die from those drugs that make up a huge chunk of TV advertising.
So I salute Farrow for his persistence and hope that he takes his journalistic integrity to these other stories as well.
24
All the respect in the world for Farrow, but the NBC response rings true. This has been true almost back to the invention of the cathode ray tube. If you can't put it on camera it isn't really a TV story.
The original New Yorker piece was devastating because it was meticulously reported and rich with detail. Ninety five of that detail would have been missing in a TV report, and without any live testimony from victims, the TV report would have been weak.
I understand why McHugh is emotional about this. He is a TV producer and wanted the story.
But the NBC position makes sense. Meanwhile, Farrow published a great piece of journalism that basically decapitated Weinstein the instant it appeared -- which, for an investigative reporter, is as good as it gets.
For me, as a New Yorker reader who would never watch TV news anyway, it was a better outcome.
14
From this reportage, it sounded more as if NBC was asking for at least one "victim" to appear on camera, and he didn't have that.
Writing that they had impeded him, contradicts that he asked and was ultimately given clearance to take the work to a print outlet that didn't have that video need.
If NBC had impeded him, the Pulitzer Committee would never have heard the story from him.
7
I wonder if the same standard exists for all NBC News stories as existed for this one: that at least one victim had to make the allegations on camera. That would be a good thing to know.
4
Oh come on ! They were covering up for that perv Weinstein! NBC is a mess
5
@Beau If they were really covering up, they wouldn't have let the story go to the New Yorker and its Pulitzer.
1
“NBC denied his characterization on Thursday, saying Mr. Farrow’s work was not broadcast-ready when the reporter decided to take his reporting to The New Yorker”
Ironically, the report was ready for publication which by the way won Mr.Farrow a Pulitzer Prize.
25
The Power of the Pen. Go Get 'em!!
32
@T.Lum Or don't ''go get 'em''.
Who the press goes after depends more and more upon power and political alliances than justice.
4
For twelve years I worked for another network's news department. The public must understand that without independent confirmation and/or on-camera descriptions of events by the accuser, there is no story and the news organization opens itself to libel lawsuits. It looks like Farrow's piece had not satisfied the above criteria and NBC was correct to hesitate.
12
@RachelT Ha... that hasn't stopped NBC, CNN, ABC, etc., before. They do what fake news does best - write what they want the public to think whether it's true or not.
3
Why is no one looking into the background and objectivity of the reporters? Ronan Farrow? Really? On this subject? C'mon guys. We now know a bit more about at least one of the major accusers. This one sided approach is exactly what fuels Trump's fire. That is truly an awful unintended consequence.
6
@Mike Allan This is a slam without any foundation. These stories have been fact checked extensively by the New Yorker and NY Times prior to any publication. All accused were given opportunities to respond, and allegations were cross checked via multiple sources. It's not a "one sided approach."
51
@Mike Allan
You try to discredit Ronan Farrow's ability to report this story without explanation, gesturing vaguely towards some broad animus you believe exists towards him with one hand, while trying to tar an unnamed victim with the other. And then you throw in Donald Trump as your mike drop. Have another cup of coffee, Mike.
7
Many mainstream and social media sources have manipulated the Weinstein case to suit their own agendas.
Weinstein did not need to force anyone to engage in sexual relations with him. Those women who chose to become intimate with Weinstein did so to advance their own careers at the expense of other women.
If a lobbyist bribes a politician and the politician accepts the bribe, both parties would be considered to be corrupt. The lobbyist would not be considered an innocent victim.
With the Weinstein saga, he sought and accepted bribes from women who wished to obtain roles in productions. The ones who offered the bribes, in this case sex, massages, and the like, are not victims, but co-conspirators. The true victims in the Weinstein case are those women who did not bribe him, therefore possibly losing out on roles in television shows and movies.
The widespread belief that the women who slept their way to the top are victims is a strong example of how the media can be used to manipulate society.
13
@Eternal Tech He forcibly raped someone I know, who has made the accusation publicly. You're either unaware of this, or ignoring it.
19
@Eternal Tech The blend of misogyny and cynicism here is rather startling. The concept of "sleeping their way to the top" is a canard perpetrated outside the industry. Talk to real actors up for real roles in real projects. I toiled in this industry for decades, in a competitive pocket of television for 13 years. This mythology about "ambitious" women and film/TV's demanding their sexual accommodation as their responsibility is a critical part of what's been exposed. But for the record: if a woman did feel compelled to engage in sexual conduct to secure a job, to be physically exploited for paying work, the practice and presumptions are so fundamentally wrong, the case for these victims is only strengthened. Parsing this debacle to segregate "real" victims from other women is appalling.
16
@Eternal Tech
listen to the taps pal. unless you do not believe Harvey's own words.
1
The NBC leaders AKA censors should be fired. Especially because of the revelations by Ed Schultz, Cenk Uygur and others, that NBC sought to suppress coverage of Bernie Sanders, the likely next president, while they were promoting Hillary and Trump.
24
@Michael
They have also, by ignoring it, endorsed the homophobic hate speech of Joy Reid on her blog.
Why does she still have her MSNBC show?
14
Agreed. Joy Reid's outspoken hatred of Bernie Sanders makes her more of an asset to MSNBC than her outspoken hatred of homosexuals makes her a liability.
4
The fact that Matt-What’s-His-Face was able to assault women colleagues for years at NBC without any action by NBC senior management is nothing short of disgraceful. That behavior was nothing short of criminal. Why has he not been prosecuted?
45
@Richard Because he's a liberal.
3
@Richard, He obviously paid out big sums of money to his victims.
2
The bottom line is MONEY. NBC tolerate Matt Lauer for years. They created trump. No surprise here.
26
We shouldn't forget that NBC is owned by Comcast and Comcast is not especially known as a tower of ethical business.
37
Sadly, this is not surprising.
Ever since the Ann Curry firing in June 2012, it has just seemed to me that NBC is just a fraternity in business suits in which their policies - such as de facto female dress codes and "token woman's topics" reinforce a male hegemony.
At least Fox was actually obvious about it, but, with NBC, it permeated their culture off-camera.
43
@VJR
You make good points, though MSNBC has protected Joy Reid, who goes unpunished for her homophobic blog posts.
3
@Jojojo
She's a liberal no? All is forgiven. But an "R" after her name and you have riots. Not surprising at all. It's all free speech to the Left until it isn't.
2
@Margo Channing
Good points. I would also consider gender as a reason she has been protected.
1
The news outlets have tremendous power in terms of what news is reported and what news is not reported. They shape our views of events. Therefore it is important to have numerous sources of news. Those who criticize NBC of fake news are simply following Trump's inane spiel. A free press is important for a democracy. News executives should be held accountable for keeping stories from being made public.
22
This is the network that is leading the charge against the "racism" and "sexism" of the Trump Administration.
4
I am a bit tired of all the whining! I am also disappointed that Mr. Farrow would waste his considerable talent on these types of stories and want everyone to believe that they are "high brow" investigative reporting. It's a sleazy story about sleazy men in Hollywood and elsewhere that is nothing new--- it has been around from the beginning of the " casting couch" days. I am, by no means, condoning this behavior but we need to face the facts that in some cases these women could have made another choice. Perhaps they could have arranged to meet and discuss their career at 9AM in his office instead of his hotel room at night or they could have brought their agent or a friend or met him in the lobby. If he said no to that then so be it--- they weren't going to get what they wanted or needed from him this time. Women have every right to be ambitious and to pursue their career aggressively, but he was a known entity and if they left his room and didn't go straight to the police, then I think they have to take some personal responsibility.
My point is that this is a big story, but it isn't an important story and maybe NBC made a choice to take the higher ground and not break a story that really belongs on Access Hollywood. So stop whining, Ronan, and use your talent and resources to uncover some real tragedies
9
@KG - Actually, when a movie director is a predator whose behavior was covered up and/or condoned by cowardly associates, so that many people didn’t know, and people who did know feared for their jobs, this is major news, and it’s important for the public to know. Thank you to all the brave ones who persisted in speaking up.
38
The person occupying the presidential office wasn't "speaking about women in vulgar terms". He was speaking about assaulting them. Please major news outlet, get this pivotal and huge distinction so you can be part of ending assault again women rather than slapping men on the wrist for rudeness.
141
So NBC claims the Farrow report was not broadcast ready. I suppose that means that Mr. Farrow was unable to somehow implicate president Trump into Weinstein's transgressions.
5
@tim k actually that is not what it means. Feel free to read the article again, it explains it as do other articles on the subject. If you are being sarcastic, I invite you to learn to communicate maturely and with emphasis on kindness and on the facts. And Weinstein committed crimes, not transgressions. Let's say focused on facts. Thanks and peace and good wishes to you and all.
20
NBC is owned by Comcast, which also owns Universal and other media properties. Is it conceivable that someone close to Weinstein could have influenced execs at Comcast to reach down to NBC news to put the brakes on the story? Yes, of course.
BUT...I hope not. If the news biz has gotten to this point then God help us.
My gut says the NBC news execs were scared of this with no on camera interviews. It’s much easier for print to break this type of story.
Producers and reporters all too often think they have the goods..but don’t have it on camera.
9
The fury over all of this is no different than how conservatives are beating up on a progressive pope just because of accusations of child abuse, which haven’t even been proven in a court of law.
I think it’s time for us, as progressives, to embrace solidarity and to practice more message discipline. NBC is a steady ally, along with MSNBC and SNL, and I think it’s time to circle the wagons, and direct attention back to Trump where it belongs.
The people who are attacking NBC over this are acting in bad faith. Ignore it! Stay focused! The news is real, not fake! And journalists don’t “bury” stories that they don’t want covered. They cover the news, objectively and with intelligence. It’s as simple as that, full stop.
6
@Trans Cat Mom
Do you think it helps our institutions to allow them license for all sorts of depravity in the name of "circling the wagons"? Self-criticism is the immune function of the west. Without it we are doomed.
3
@Trans Cat Mom "NBC is a steady ally, along with MSNBC and SNL" speaks volumes about the current state of media. NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX news, CNN, MSNBC, etc. should not be allies of any political group! There is your problem
.
3
So when Trump goes to a rally and claims fake news he’s essentially correct. How nauseating. How sad.
Now I need to throw-up then try to remember the country I was born in.
14
There is little doubt this is true. The Lauer "Investigation" was a complete whitewash. The notion that the executive ranks of NBC didn't know what one of their prime broadcasting assets was up is totally risible.
53
NBC is no progressive champion. NBC guards its own, and if the public welfare suffers as a result, so be it. It holds up Saturday Night Live and MSNBC as proof of its bona fides, but these are only a cover that too many Americans are willing to accept. I don't.
16
This is deplorable, and is all too similar to another NBC cover-up of horrible actions of another figure.
Joy Reid, of course, wrote horrific homophobic rants on her blog some years ago, yet she still has her show on MSNBC. MSNBC has remained mute, and some of her host colleagues have not only failed to condemn her bigotry, but have spoken out in her support.
Is the fix in at (MS)NBC?
Reid's writings come from her past, but NBC has regularly, and rightly, condemned past bigoted statements from other well-known figures.
Why does Reid get a pass? Because of her race or gender? Because the gay population is not huge, and therefore not seen as a threat to NBC? I don't know. They punished Brian Williams for far less.
As with the failures of the Catholic Church to meaningfully address the sex abuse issue, the longer MSNBC fails do meaningfully and publicly condemn and punish Reid, the less they have the moral authority to condemn bigoted speech from any public figure.
18
“He was never told to stop in the way he’s implying.”
Then, in what way was he told to stop?
"Mr. Farrow’s work was not broadcast-ready..."
And never would have been.
55
@European American
Groundbreaking story that NBC was putting on the back burner with the heat off. Either extremely poor news noses there or something more nefarious...
5
I originally thought Mr. Farrow was a brilliant and upcoming young journalist. I now see that he sold his soul for the stories and so ends a promising career.
2
@ndbza
Exactly how did he do that?
28
Yeah, that Pulitzer he won will surely end his hopes for a career in journalism.
44
They protect their own.
9
@Dr. Timothy Hoffman
Yes, as with MSNBC doing nothing in the face of Joy Reid's homophobic blog rants.
11
@Jojojo
How does Rachel Maddow stand to be on the same network. The hypocrisy is astounding.
Networks trying to kill a story, really shocking. Iy's about controlling what people know. It's a bizarre world we live in ,maybe Matt Lauer said the story wasn't credible.
8
@John The most insidious "power" of the media is the "power" to ignore.
4
I met and interviewed LAWRENCE "LARRY" K. GROSSMAN (1931-2018), former head of PBS and NBC News, in April 2011 for research I was doing on his late uncle, I.N. Kugelmass, MD. I clearly recall my two and a half hour visit to his Greenwich Village apartment where Larry and I sat at his desk and talked. Larry's wife Alberta was kindness itself in standing by during a fairly exhausting and intense interview. Larry rose to the occasion and was prepared with documents he thought would be useful to my research.
We took a brief break, and while doing so I nodded my head at the framed black/white portrait of Edward R. Murrow prominently displayed on a bookshelf behind Larry's desk. I remarked that it was quite a beautiful portrait of the late journalist. Larry smiled as he stood there and, holding the framed photograph in both hands, said, "He was my hero." I was so impressed that Larry had Edward R. Murrow as his hero, and that Larry, with all of his accomplishments, still felt that connection forty-six years after Murrow's death.
I believe that both Ed Murrow and Larry Grossman would be shocked at the behavior of NBC News today. Some corporate influence seems to have been exerted to stop Farrow's reporting. We are truly living in Trumpian times.
93
Comcast, which owns NBC and MSNBC, is at heart a communications company that is dependent on government approval for expansion. Comcast was also dependent on people like Harvey Weinstein for quality entertainment. While MSNBC has become a very profitable niche market business, it puts Comcast in the cross hairs of a very vengeful President. Therefore it isn't surprising that the top people at Comcast, Brian Roberts and David Cohen, would prefer others to take the lead in aggressive reporting.
MSNBC has settled on a very successful format of providing a second avenue for leading reporters at major news outlets, such as the New York Times and Washington Post, to provide some of the best reporting available on TV. The days of great original TV reporting are behind us. We no longer see the likes of Edward R. Morrow, Walter Cronkite or Eric Severeid in TV News anymore. Only The PBS NewsHour offers deep analysis of national and international issues.
So, I think the current criticism is probably on point, but in the current political climate where the threat of retibution is very real, I appreciate the difficult position they are in. I also very much enjoy the MSNBC approach of inviting leading reporters to contribute on a regular and symbiotic relationship with their network.
66
While I believe all news networks are complicit in this type of behavior,
it is never the less very dis-heartening when pointed out!
14
I worked for a TV network with a major sexual harassment/Human Resources scandal. Among the many salacious details, this “scandal” included a mysterious death of an innocent person connected to the company.
The investigation of that scandal was handled “in-house”too. An in-house investigation really means the entire episode will be erased/minimized to protect the company. The accusers/witnesses quickly faced retaliation, eventual termination and careers ended. The details were never reported to the police for a potential homicide investigation.
While I don’t believe the overall “fake news” narrative, I do know media companies (like all big business) cannot self police and are not above the pressures to kill certain stories that go against their own self interest and/or powerful conspirators.
Justice depends on how much money and power your adversary has - and how far you’re willing to be dragged through the mud to get to the truth.
78
@P
"In-house investigation" is a contradiction in terms. Also be wary of out-of-house investigations that are conducted by law firms that have had a prior relationship with the house.
5
@P that's insane... any chance you can name the network, or share more details to hint at which one it is? I'd want to avoid it in the future.
This is the same company that waited until 30 days before the presidential election to release the tape of Donald Trump talking about women on the bus.This is one example of why people do not trust the press. There reporting is biased and that is unprofessional.If they would have released that tape early in the Republican primary Trump might not have won the nomination.They did not release the tape because they were making money off of Trumps making the election interesting.They released the tape because the election was getting close and they were pulling for Clinton.The only problem was if there were any fence sitters Comey took care of that by reopening the Clinton email case.This article just reinforces that opinion.
39
@Sean Mulligan - while you are throwing blame around don't forget to include Bill C. His behaviour overlooked by the mainstream press (this paper included) inoculated Trump. Thanks Bill.
8
@Sean Mulligan The question this begs is this: how were the Russians and Wikileaks able to react within thirty minutes of the "Access Hollywood" tape being shown by releasing the Podesta e-mails? That seems to me a bit quick for reacting to a completely unexpected event, unless there was just a trigger needing to be pulled... perhaps there was a situation room monitoring the US 24/7? Or someone knew ahead of time?
2
When I hear "free press", I laugh. It's the same cabal that controls all the news. I wonder what their common goal is?